que le jour – -Translation – Keybot Dictionary

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

ET EN OUTRE PRENEZ AVIS que si vous entendez faire objection à une des conclusions de fait et conclusions de droit contenues dans la décision du comité avis de telle objection exposant les motifs d’objection doit être déposé auprès du secrétaire de la Law Society à Osgoode Hall, Toronto, aussitôt que possible mais pas plus tard que le jour précédant celui où l’affaire sera examinée par l’assemblée.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that if you intend to object to any of the findings and fact and the conclusions of law contained in the decision of the committee notice of such objection together with the grounds therefor should be filed with the Secretary of the Law Society at Osgoode Hall, Toronto as soon as possible but not later than the day before the matter will be considered by Convocation.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	«Si vous entendez contester une énonciation de fait ou conclusion de fait contenue dans le rapport ci-joint du comité de discipline au moment où il sera examiné par l’assemblée, vous êtes requis de produire auprès du secrétaire pas plus tard que le jour précédent l’assemblée une déclaration écrite exposant quelle énonciation de fait ou conclusion de fait vous entendez contester.»
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain	“If you intend to dispute any statement of fact or finding of fact contained in the attached report of the Discipline Committee at the time of its consideration by Convocation, you are required to file with the Secretary not later than the day preceding Convocation a written statement setting forth any such statement of fact or finding of fact that you intend to dispute.”

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Au procès, Gagné et Thériault ont tous deux témoigné n’avoir pas réellement vu le garçonnet avant le choc, n’ayant perçu qu’une «ombre» que Gagné n’a pu identifier comme étant celle d’un homme ou d’un petit garçon. Thériault, assis du côté droit de la cabine, n’a pas vu davantage. Ils ont rendu ces témoignages alors que l’accident remontait déjà à plus de trois ans, et il est très important de signaler que, le jour même de l’accident, Gagné a fait la déclaration suivante à l’agent de police Henderson, arrivé sur les lieux moins de dix minutes après que le garçonnet eût été blessé:

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

At the trial both Gagné and Thériault testified that neither actually saw the boy before the impact, being aware only of a “shadow” which Gagné did not recognize as being a man or a boy. Thériault who was sitting on the right side of the cab did not see any more. This evidence was given more than three years after the accident, and it is very significant that on the day of the accident Gagné gave a statement to a police officer, Constable Henderson, who arrived at the scene within ten minutes after the boy was injured as follows:

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

202 prévoit à cette fin. Le dossier démontre que le jour de l’audition, le 27 mai 1968, un amendement a été permis pour porter le montant réclamé à $81,764. La date à laquelle cet amendement a été fait me semble être celle à laquelle il faut arrêter le calcul des versements échus pour lesquels une condamnation pouvait être prononcée en Cour supérieure.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

There is no indication why the learned trial judge calculated the payments due up to December 23, 1968. Under the 1965 Code of Civil Procedure, an incidental demand is no longer necessary, as it formerly was, to assert a right accrued since the service of the action and connected with the right claimed by the original suit. Article 202 provides for an amendment for such purpose. The record shows that on the day of the trial, May 27, 1968, an amendment was allowed to increase the amount claimed to $81,764. In my view the date on which this amendment was made is the date for terminating the calculation of such payments due as could be made the object of an order by the Superior Court. It must be held, therefore, that on May 27, 1968, there were twenty payments due, or $11,504.80.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

[9] Ling Gao travaillait au bar Piazza Sports sur le chemin Vaughan en juillet 2000.  Madame Gao a déclaré que, le jour de l’agression à coups de couteau alléguée, un groupe d’adolescents, dont un jeune homme nommé George (prénom de M. Ellison), jouaient au billard.  Elle leur a demandé de partir parce qu’ils étaient trop bruyants.  À un moment donné cet après‑midi-là, elle a aussi vu deux adolescents se battre à l’extérieur.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

[9] Ling Gao was working at the Piazza Sports Bar on Vaughan Road in July  2000.  Ms. Gao stated that, on the date of the alleged stabbing, a group of teenagers were playing pool, including a young man named George (Mr. Ellison’s given name).  She asked the group to leave because they were making too much noise.  At some point that afternoon, she was aware of two teenagers fighting outside.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

LE JUGE DICKSON—Cette affaire soulève une question simple mais intéressante quant à la preuve de propriété dans une inculpation de vol. Les appelants ont été inculpés du vol de deux bagues de diamants, propriété de Westwood Jewellers Limited sise au 3298 avenue Portage en la Ville de Winnipeg. La preuve a établi que la bijouterie où les bagues avaient été dérobées était connue sous le nom de Westwood Jewellers, qu’elle était sise au 3298 avenue Portage en la Ville de Winnipeg et que, le jour de l’infraction allégué, le propriétaire et gérant de Westwood Jewellers était un certain M. Nuytten. A la fin de la présentation de la preuve par le Ministère public, la défense a demandé le rejet de l’accusation pour le motif que le Ministère public n’avait pas prouvé que les bagues appartenaient à Westwood Jewellers Limited, tel que mentionné dans l’acte d’accusation. Sur le point précis de l’identité du propriétaire, M. Nuytten a témoigné comme suit:

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

DICKSON J.—This case raises a short but interesting point as to proof of ownership on a charge of theft. The appellants were charged with stealing two diamond rings the property of Westwood Jewellers Limited, situate at 3298 Portage Avenue in the City of Winnipeg. The evidence established that the store from which the rings were taken was known as Westwood Jewellers, that it was situate at 3298 Portage Avenue in the City of Winnipeg and that the owner and manager of Westwood Jewellers on the day of the alleged offence was a Mr. Nuytten. At the conclusion of the Crown’s case, the defence moved for dismissal of the charge on the submission that the Crown had failed to lead evidence of ownership of the rings in West-wood Jewellers Limited, as charged. On the specific point of ownership, one finds this evidence of Mr. Nuytten:

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

touche l’intimé est que le jour après son élection (le 16 octobre), au cours d’une conversation téléphonique avec R.C. Baxter, qui était à Toronto, ce dernier a dit que «la question de la 40e Avenue le laissait tout à fait indifférent; que cette question n’avait jamais été importante en ce qui concernait le projet du centre commercial, et qu’il ne s’opposerait pas à la fermeture de la 40e Avenue si le conseil le désirait».

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

the respondent is that on the day after his election (October 16th) in the course of a long distance conversation with R.C. Baxter, who was in Toronto, the latter said that he “could not care less about 40th Avenue; that it had never been of any importance to the shopping centre project and that he would have no objection to 40th Avenue being closed if that were Council’s wish.” The statement later continued to describe a meeting at which Waisman and the respondent were present and it is said that “Mr. Waisman said that he agreed with Mr. Baxter that 40th Avenue was not of great importance to the shopping centre project…”. There later follows the statement that at the Council meeting that considered the agreement, the developers “did not make it clear that 40th Avenue did not matter to them…”, and finally, the mayor recounts a telephone conversation in which he told Baxter that “I consider there to be a serious breach of faith in his firm’s handling of the matter”. It is perhaps as well to reproduce the whole of the paragraph in which this last statement is made:

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

[11] David Miranda a également témoigné que, le jour suivant, il est retourné à la maison de la rue Fell et il a parlé avec Hugo, qui lui a dit : [traduction] « . . . je crois que mon frère t’a déjà dit quelque chose [. . .] Maintenant, tu es dans le coup. [. . .]  Je veux que tu ailles brûler une auto. . . »  Hugo a expliqué à David Miranda que son frère avait conduit la voiture en question et qu’il craignait qu’un expert en criminalistique parvienne à identifier les cheveux de ce dernier.  David Miranda a d’abord répondu qu’il ne voulait pas le faire, mais il a finalement consenti à acheter de l’essence pour Christian Quintanilla, qui avait accepté de mettre le feu à la voiture.  David Miranda a témoigné qu’il ne savait pas que le corps de la victime se trouvait à l’intérieur du véhicule.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

[11] Miranda also testified that the next day, he returned to the Fell Street residence and spoke with Hugo.  Hugo said, “. . . I believe my brother already told you something . . . . Now you’re involved. . . . I want you to go burn a car. . . .”  Hugo told  Miranda that his brother had driven the car and that he was afraid that a forensic scientist might be able to identify his brother’s hair.  Miranda said that he did not want to do it but eventually agreed to buy some gas for Christian Quintanilla who was asked and agreed to burn the car.  Miranda testified that he did not know that the victim’s body was inside the car.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	C’est par pure coïncidence que le jour même du début de l’audition de ce pourvoi, la Chambre des communes a passé en deuxième lecture un projet de loi sur l’abolition de la peine de mort et l’a par la suite adopté; en conséquence même si les décla­rations de culpabilité des accusés sont maintenues après rejet de tous les moyens d’appel, ils ne pourront pas être excécutés [sic].
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain	It is mere coincidence that on the very day on which the hearing of this appeal commenced the House of Commons gave second reading to a bill to abolish capital punishment. The bill was subse­quently passed into law; and although the result is that the two accused, if their convictions are upheld by the rejection of all grounds of appeal urged against them, will not be liable to execution,

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	38               Regan Thatcher a déposé qu'il se trouvait à la maison avec son père au moment du premier coup de feu et également lorsque sa mère a été tuée. Il a déclaré que, le jour du meurtre, il est rentré de l'école entre 16 h et 16 h 30 et que son père est entré vers 17 h 30 et que son frère, son père, Mme Silversides et lui‑même ont soupé vers 18 h.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain	38               Regan Thatcher testified that he was at home with his father at the time of the earlier shooting and also when his mother was murdered. He stated that, on the day of the murder, he came home from school between 4:00 and 4:30 p.m., that his father came in about 5:30 p.m. and that he, his brother, his father and Mrs. Silversides ate dinner at about 6 o'clock.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Cependant, ni l'un ni l'autre n'a été officiellement accusé avant le 14 janvier 1983, bien que le jour de leur arrestation on ait dit à Kalanj qu'il était arrêté pour vol et à Pion qu'il était arrêté pour complot en vue de commettre un vol.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

Coming back to these cases, it seems that both appellants were released under the condition that they would not leave the area.  However, neither of them was formally charged until January 14, 1983, although on the day of the arrest, Kalanj was told that he was being arrested for theft and Pion was told that he was being arrested for conspiracy to commit theft.  In the months following the arrest, both accused suffered financial, familial, social and health problems.  It is obvious that in such a small community, they were "the talk of the town", and that their conduct was as of the moment they were arrested of common knowledge to the people of the area.  I note that they tried to expedite the laying of charges but could not persuade the prosecution to do so.   They suffered without a doubt a breach of their liberty as well as a restraint of their security.  Concerning the concept of security of the person, I stated in Mills, supra, at pp. 919-20:

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Il est difficile de concevoir, dans les circonstances, une demande de résidence permanente faite dans un délai plus raisonnable que le jour même où, pour la première fois, l’intéressé apprend qu’il doit faire une telle demande.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

he was making an application within a definitely allowed time. It is difficult to imagine an application made more reasonably under the circumstances than an application for permanent residence made on the very day that he was first informed such an application was necessary. If the word “forthwith” is properly defined as “within a reasonable time under the circumstances”, I am of the opinion that the appellant’s application made on March 15 was made within the provisions of s. 7(3) of the Immigration Act and that the appellant should have the right to “for all purposes” be considered an applicant for permanent residence. As Laskin J.A. pointed out in Regina v. Pringle, Ex parte Mills, supra, one of those “purposes” is the appearance before an immigration officer for an examination under the provisions of s. 20 of the Immigration Act. I agree with the statement made by Laskin J.A., in that case at p. 133, when he said:

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

10                      Cette position a également été adoptée par la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario dans R. c. Douglas (1991), 5 O.R. (3d) 29, arrêt rendu pratiquement en même temps que Stinchcombe (no 1).  Je note qu’un pourvoi contre cette décision a été rejeté par notre Cour ([1993] 1 R.C.S. 893), dans un arrêt unanime où le Juge en chef a rédigé des motifs succincts qui, sur le plan des principes, ne contredisent pas la décision de la Cour d’appel.  Dans Douglas, les faits révélaient que, le jour même du début du procès, la preuve n’avait toujours pas été divulguée complètement à la défense.  Au lieu de faire enquête sur le caractère substantiel de la preuve, le juge du procès a immédiatement ordonné l’arrêt des procédures.  La Cour d’appel a infirmé cette décision et a, à cette occasion, fait les commentaires suivants, à la p. 30, à propos du lien entre la divulgation et la Charte:

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

45                 This position was also taken by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Douglas (1991), 5 O.R. (3d) 29, a case decided at virtually the same time as  Stinchcombe (No. 1). I would note that an appeal from this decision was unanimously dismissed by this Court ([1993] 1 S.C.R. 893) in which the Chief Justice delivered short reasons which did not disagree in principle with the decision of the Court of Appeal.  In Douglas, the facts revealed that as of the trial date, disclosure had still not been fully made to the defence.  Rather than inquiring into the materiality of the evidence, the trial judge immediately stayed the proceedings.  The Court of Appeal reversed the decision, and in doing so made the following comments at p. 30 about the relationship between disclosure and the Charter:

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Il est donc évident qu’il était permis à l’occasion de chasser le gros gibier, dont le chevreuil, sur ces terres et que le jour où se sont produites les infractions imputées, il était permis d’y chasser l’ours noir et la gélinotte, mais non le chevreuil.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

There were a number of large signs posted throughout the Area bearing such messages as "Elk restocking area. Hunters be sure to shoot only at legal game" and "Attention big game hunters, snowmobiles prohibited, except for the retrieving of lawfully killed big game animals." It is thus clear that the Area was one in which big game, including deer, could legally be hunted and killed from time to time, and in which limited hunting for black bear and grouse, though not for deer, was permitted on the day of the alleged offences. Two questions must now be addressed: (i) was the Area unoccupied Crown land?; (ii) if not, was it land to which Indians had a "right of access", within the meaning of para. 13 of the Memorandum of Agreement?

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Rémunérés en dollars canadiens, ces employés paient de l'impôt au gouvernement canadien et cotisent au Régime de pensions du Canada et au régime d'assurance‑chômage. Ils ont, comme congés rémunérés, les jours de fête nationale aux États‑Unis ainsi que le jour de la Fête du Canada.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain	The civilian employees are hired by the Argentia Base personnel office.  They are paid in Canadian currency.  They must remit Canadian income tax and make Canada Pension Plan and Unemployment Insurance contributions.  The employees receive as paid holidays both the American national holidays and Canada Day.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Au procès, l'intimé a témoigné que, au cours des deux semaines qui avaient précédé la date de l'accusation, il avait manqué de sommeil du fait qu'il avait dû passer beaucoup de temps à l'hôpital au chevet de sa mère malade.  Il a expliqué que, le jour où les faits en cause se sont déroulés, après avoir bu quelques bières avec un ami, il était monté dans son auto, s'était assoupi et avait dormi pendant deux heures et demie.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

The appellant testified at trial that he had lost quite a bit of sleep during the two weeks preceding the date of the charge, as he was spending a great deal of time in the hospital with his mother who was ill.  He explained that on the date of the charge he consumed "a few bottles of beer" with a friend, then got into his car and fell asleep for two-and-a-half hours.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

708 C.p., accomplissant par là une formalité qui équivaut à une opposition à fin de conserver; elle a dépêché un fonctionnaire chargé d’enchérir pour protéger les droits de la Ville; elle n’a pris connaissance de l’irrégularité que le jour même du décret, quand il était trop tard pour faire opposition; elle a formé sa requête en annulation de décret dans le délai de rigueur prescrit par l’art.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

any municipality seeking to protect its rights would: it sent a statement of its claim to the sheriff within the time prescribed, pursuant to art. 708 C.C.P., thereby fulfilling a formal requirement that is equivalent to an opposition for payment; it dispatched an official who was instructed to bid to protect the Town’s rights; it did not learn of the irregularity until the actual day of the sheriffs sale, when it was too late to object; it made its motion to vacate the sheriffs sale within the peremptory time prescribed by art. 700 C.C.P. I am unable to draw the slightest inference of tacit consent from these facts; indeed, they indicate the contrary. We are therefore not dealing with a creditor who, although he could in fact have objected and chosen a preventive procedure, deliberately waited and adopted the curative remedy; the Town of Anjou used the most drastic remedy because it is the only one it in fact ever had.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Après avoir abattu l'agent de police, les quatre malfaiteurs se sont enfuis et se sont emparés de plusieurs otages par la suite. Les otages n'ont été finalement tous libérés que le jour suivant, à 19 h, lorsque l'appelante et Tracie Perry se sont rendues.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

22.                     After the police officer was shot the four made their getaway and subsequently took several hostages. All the hostages were not released until the next day at 7:00 p.m. when the appellant and Tracie Perry surrendered themselves. On March 14, 1976 the police entered the home in which the hostages were held and found John Gamble dead and William Nichols unconscious, both from drug overdoses.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Killam a de plus témoigné qu’il avait discuté de la situation avec le chef, Thibeau, alors adjoint du cantonnier en chef, et que Thibeau l’avait à son tour adressé à son chef à Kentville. Thibeau a témoigné que le jour où la demande a été faite, il n’était plus adjoint du cantonnier en chef et ne se trouvait pas dans la région.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

nuisance of himself in complaining to the section man and to almost everyone else as to the danger of the crossing. He also testified to having a bulldozer there for the purpose of widening his own private road and that when such a machine got to the point where it would cross on to the property of the railway he requested Deveau, the section man, to give him permission to do so and that Deveau simply referred him to his superior. Killam further testified that he discussed the situation with the superior, Thibeau, the then assistant roadmaster, and that in turn Thibeau referred him to his superior in Kentville. Thibeau gave evidence that the date when the request was made he was no longer assistant roadmaster and was not in the area. Deveau did not even remember the conversation. It is quite evident that the jury from its verdict believed, as I am of the opinion that they were entitled to believe, the evidence of Killam. At any rate, I regard that as immaterial as certainly there was evidence and uncontradicted evidence that Killam constantly complained of the danger of the crossing in his conversations with Deveau and that Deveau, being the section foreman, was under a duty to inform his superiors as to the danger of the crossing. Indeed, neither Deveau nor Thibeau, who travelled past this crossing once a day, could have failed to have realized the startling danger it presented to anyone attempting to drive along the private road from the highway easterly across the crossing into the Killam property. It is said that the crossing during the sixty or more years in which it existed had not resulted in any accidents but I am of the opinion that that is not an important consideration when determining whether the circumstances should be regarded as exceptional. The crossing was used by few persons and it is probably true that most of the persons realized the very grave danger which it presented. Moreover, the line was infrequently used by trains and during the time when that traffic was by steam trains the approach of such a machine was usually accompanied by a considerable noise. Too often a danger is allowed to exist until the occurrence of a fatality makes it impossible to ignore that danger any longer. I am therefore of the view that the circumstances in effect at this crossing did constitute exceptional

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Il découle de la preuve de la poursuite que, le jour de la grève, le chemin qui donne accès à la mine était bloqué par des voitures entrecroisées, empêchant toute circulation à partir de 6h30. Cependant, l’on pouvait avoir accès à la mine par un autre chemin et le blocus fut effectivement levé vers 9h30. De 35 à 40 pour cent des employés appelés au travail à cette heure là se sont présentés vers midi. L’intimé devait travailler de 8h à 17h. Il n’y a donc pas lieu de considérer la défense d’impossibilité.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

It emerged from the evidence of the prosecution that, on the day of the strike, the road leading to the mine was blocked by interlocking vehicles, preventing all traffic from 6:30 a.m. onwards. However, the mine could be reached by another road and the blockage was in fact lifted at about 9:30 a.m. From 35 to 40 per cent of the employees required to work at that time reported at around noon. Respondent was required to work from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. There is accordingly no basis for considering the defence of impossibility.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

et que des tests préliminaires, pratiqués après avoir noté les antécédents, révélaient un état diabétique. Subséquemment, l'appelant fut soumis à une épreuve de tolérance au glucose, laquelle révéla la présence d'un diabète. Le médecin prescrivit une médication par voie buccale et un régime de diabétique. A l'époque des procédures pour outrage, le 25 septembre 1969, le taux de glycémie de l'appelant était revenu à la normale. L'appelant témoigna qu'après son collapsus, il n'est pas sorti de chez lui sauf les deux jours où il est allé subir des tests et que, le jour de son procès, c'était la première fois qu'il se rendait en ville depuis qu'il était sous les soins d'un médecin.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

10 at his office and that preliminary tests, given after taking a history, indicated a diabetic condition. The appellant was given a glucose tolerance test later, and the results were positive for diabetes. The doctor put the appellant on oral medication and a diabetic's diet. By the time of the contempt proceedings on September 25, 1969, the appellant's sugar levels had been brought under control. Save for two days on which he went for tests, the appellant (according to his testimony) had been at home since his collapse, and the day of the contempt proceedings was his first downtown since he came under doctor's care.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Pour ceux à qui leur religion impose l’observance d’un jour de repos autre que le dimanche, l’effet pratique de cette Loi est purement séculier et financier du fait qu’ils sont obligés de s’abstenir de travailler ou de faire des affaires le dimanche aussi bien que le jour de repos qu’ils observent.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

The practical result of this law on those whose religion requires them to observe a day of rest other than Sunday, is a purely secular and financial one in that they are required to refrain from carrying on or conducting their business on Sunday as well as on their own day of rest. In some cases this is no doubt a business inconvenience, but it is neither an abrogation nor an abridgment nor an infringement of religious freedom, and the fact that it has been brought about by reason of the existence of a statute enacted for the purpose of preserving the sanctity of Sunday, cannot, in my view, be construed as attaching some religious significance to an effect which is purely secular in so far as non-Christians are concerned.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Madame Seidlick, le professeur de maternelle du plaignant, a déposé que le jour en question, elle avait remarqué qu'il s'était couché sur le tapis dans la salle de classe loin des autres élèves. Elle a également remarqué qu'il était troublé et lorsqu'elle a tenté de découvrir ce qui le préoccupait, il s'est plaint de douleurs.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

Mrs. Seidlick, the complainant's kindergarten teacher, testified that on the day in question she noticed the complainant lying down on the carpet in the classroom away from the other students.  She also noticed that he was upset and when she tried to find out what was bothering him he complained of soreness.  She further testified that the complainant had informed her that the big boys had hurt him and that he had named the appellant as one of the students involved.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

VI.              Le 6 juillet 1988, alors qu'elle était interrogée à titre de personne soupçonnée de meurtre, l'appelante a déclaré à la police que, le jour de la signature du testament, elle avait amené le défunt en ville et qu'il s'était rendu seul au cabinet d'avocat.  Invitée à expliquer les contradictions entre son témoignage et sa déclaration à la police, elle a répondu qu'elle avait parlé sous l'effet de la pression et de la peur.  Quant on lui a demandé pourquoi le défunt lui avait laissé une aussi grande part de ses biens, elle a répondu que c'était probablement à cause de l'affection qu'il avait pour elle.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

The secretary finished reading the will and the deceased signed it in the waiting room on his lap.  An affidavit of execution was executed, swearing that the will was executed in the presence of Clark and the other secretary, who, both present at the same time, and in the presence of the testator, had attested and subscribed the will as witnesses.  The secretary also testified that Vout requested that the account in connection with the preparation of the will not be sent to the farm and that Vout came into the office and paid the bill.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

considéré qu’il n’était pas pertinent que, le jour en question, il fût interdit de chasser le chevreuil. Il fallait, pour entraîner l’application de la restriction, un droit général d’accès pour chasser. Une fois un droit de chasser établi, les Indiens pouvaient alors chasser toute espèce en toute saison de l’année, pourvu qu’ils le fissent pour se nourrir et d’une manière non dangereuse. Les règlements en vigueur au Manitoba le 2 octobre 1967 prévoyaient un droit de chasser sur les terres en question. Donc le droit des Indiens d’y chasser pour se nourrir était garanti par la Constitution et ne pouvait être abrogé par la province du Manitoba.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

Wilson. The fact that on the day in question deer hunting was prohibited was considered to be irrelevant. The right of access required to engage the proviso was a right of access to hunt generally. Once a right to hunt was established, then Indians could hunt any species at any time of the year, as long as the hunting was for food and non-dangerous. The regulations in force in Manitoba on October 2, 1967, contemplated a right to hunt on the lands in question. Therefore the right of Indians to hunt these lands for food was constitutionally guaranteed and could not be abrogated by the Province of Manitoba.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	L’appelant témoigna à sa demande et déclara que la version qu’il avait donnée par écrit et signée le 2 septem­bre n’était pas exacte. Il affirma que le jour de l’agres­sion, il avait joué au golf avec messieurs Geoghegan, Snyder et Côté et qu’il était reparti du club avec son épouse vers 6 h.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain	[TRANSLATION] Appellant testified at his own request and stated that the version he had given in writing and signed on September 2 was not correct. He stated that on the day of the attack he had played golf with Messrs. Geoghegan, Snyder and Côté and had left the Club with his wife at about 6:45 p.m.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Weir (1978), 23 O.R. (2d) 765, savoir que la femme avait assumé la quasi-totalité des charges énumérées au par. 4(5) permettant ainsi au mari de se livrer à ses activités professionnelles et d’affaires, ce qu’il faisait le soir aussi bien que le jour.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

This case does not support the kind of finding made by Southey J. in Weir v. Weir (1978), 23 O.R. (2d) 765, where he concluded that the wife had shouldered almost the entire burden of the responsibilities set out in s. 4(5) and thereby released the husband for his professional and business pursuits which he carried on in the evening as well as during the day. Equally, the wife was thereby prevented from earning money herself. In the result, Southey J. made a generous division of the family assets in favour of the wife and hence made no division of the non-family assets.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	La Cour supérieure estime que pour participer à une grève, il est nécessaire d’y prendre une part active se manifestant par des gestes positifs; elle note par exemple que nulle preuve n’établit que, le jour de la grève, l’intimé ait été vu au nombre des personnes faisant de l’obstruction, participant au piquetage ou au blocus de la mine.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain	The Superior Court considered that in order to participate in a strike, it is necessary to take an active part in it as indicated by positive action; it noted, for example, that there was no evidence that on the day of the strike respondent had been seen among the many persons causing an obstruction, participating in picketing the mine or blockading it.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

[TRADUCTION]  La poursuite soutient à juste titre que, le jour de l'entrée en vigueur de la Charte, l'accusé était un témoin qui avait déposé et non un témoin qui était sur le point de déposer. Toutefois l'expression "a witness who testifies" a été inscrite dans le texte anglais de la Charte pour remplacer le projet de rédaction "a witness ... when compelled to testify" afin de dissiper tout doute en ce qui a trait à la question de savoir si un témoin en principe volontaire, comme un accusé, peut réclamer la protection de l'article. L'expression "who testifies» dans le texte anglais précise simplement que le terme witness englobe un témoin volontaire. Voir l'analyse du juge Grotsky dans R. v. Staranchuk (1982), 3 C.C.C. (3d) 138, [1983] 2 W.W.R. 145, 45 C.B.R. (N.S.) 200 (infirmé pour d'autres motifs dans 8 C.C.C. (3d) 150, 3 D.L.R. (4th) 574, [1983] 6 W.W.R. 729). Par conséquent, j'accepte l'argument de l'accusé selon lequel le droit d'empêcher l'usage incriminant d'un témoignage antérieur vise tous les témoins, peu importe le moment où ils déposent.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

It is argued correctly for the Crown that, on the day on which the Charter came into force, the accused was a witness who had testified, and not a witness who was yet to testify. But the expression `a witness who testifies' was inserted in the Charter in substitution of the draft words `a witness...when compelled to testify' in order to remove doubt whether a technically voluntary witness, such as an accused, can assert the protection of the section. The words `who testifies' merely clarify that `witness' includes a voluntary witness: see the analysis by Grotsky J. in R. v. Staranchuk (1982), 3 C.C.C. (3d) 138, [1983] 2 W.W.R. 145, 45 C.B.R. (N.S.) 200 (overruled on other grounds 8 C.C.C. (3d) 150, 3 D.L.R. (4th) 574, [1983] 6 W.W.R. 729). I therefore accept the contention for the accused that the right to prevent incriminating use of previous testimony extends to all witnesses, and whenever they testify.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

La seule raison pour laquelle cette conférence n’a pas été tenue avant le 12 novembre est que, comme le maire l’a expliqué, le 11 novembre étant un jour férié il avait été retenu par certains engagements officiels dont il ne s’était libéré qu’à 3 ou 4 heures du matin, de sorte qu’il n’avait pu se consacrer que le jour suivant à la question du vote pris par le conseil municipal le 10 novembre.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

It was against this background of fact that on November 12th the mayor called together a special press conference of all the news media representatives for the purpose of publishing the first of his statements containing part of the alleged libel of which the respondent complains in this action. The only reason that this conference was not called until the 12th was that, as the mayor explained, November 11th was a holiday and he was engaged in representational duties from which he did not return until 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning, so that it was not until the next day that he was able to address himself to the question of the City Council vote on the 10th. He was then very angry and later in the day, after writing out a statement in long hand, he proceeded with arrangements to give it the widest possible publicity.